1. Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums
Reviewer Orientation
July 17, 2012
2. Connecting to the Webinar
• Be sure you can hear through your speakers,
headset, or phone.
• Dial in: 1 877 568 4108
• Access Code: 805-396-217 (PIN code)
• You will remain muted for most of the session.
• To ensure confidentiality, attendee list is blocked.
2
4. Learning Labs Program Partners
• Joint initiative funded by the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation and the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
• Urban Libraries Council (ULC) and Association of
Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) are partner
cooperators
4
5. Program Description
“Grants support the planning and design of learning
labs in libraries and museums intended to engage
middle-and high-school youth in mentor-led,
interest-based, youth centered, collaborative
learning using digital and traditional media.”
Program Guidelines:
http://www.imls.gov/applicants/learning_labs_guidelines
5
6. Program Overview
Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums grants are
intended to support projects that:
•Promote libraries and museums as innovation
hubs for middle and high school youth
•Use current research, design and programming
principles to develop 21st century skills
•Build capacity of library and museum professionals
•Produce model, replicable plans for the field
6
7. Grant Basics
• Eligible Institutions: Museums, Libraries
• Awards up to $100,000 each
• Cost sharing of at least one-third is encouraged
• Partnerships strengthen application
7
8. Opportunities for Funding
Grants for Learning Labs in
Libraries and Museums may be used to:
•Support the development of comprehensive plans for
programs, space, staffing, and budgeting for Learning
Labs
•Prototype certain Lab activities or experiences
•Support emerging labs that are already in the process
of connecting youth with innovative digital media and
learning
8
9. Funding Cycle
• Second funding cycle
• First cohort funded January 1, 2012
• Twelve current grantees: see IMLS press release
• Second cohort starts January 1, 2013
• Cohorts together form community of practice with
goal to create a national network of Learning
Labs
9
12. Gmail account
PLEASE DO:
• Use this identification information to access the
project Basecamp account.
• Use your Gmail address ID to "sign" your reviews
• Use the Gmail account to email your completed
reviews to program staff (
learninglabsreviews@gmail.com)
12
13. Gmail account
PLEASE DO NOT:
•Change the name or login information on this
account
•Link it to your personal account (you will lose
anonymity)
•Import any contact lists
13
19. Evaluating Proposals
• Getting Started:
• Review the Handbook
• Check proposals for conflicts
• Complete and return Service Agreement
• Download one Evaluation form per proposal
19
20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
As a reviewer or panelist for the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS), you may receive a grant application
for review that could present a conflict of interest. Such a
conflict could arise if you are involved with the applicant
institution, or in the project described in the application, as a
paid consultant or through other financial involvement. The
same restrictions apply if your spouse or minor child is
involved with the applicant institution or if the application is
presented on behalf of an institution with which you, your
spouse or minor child is negotiating future employment.
2 0
21. Confidentiality
• The information contained in grant applications is strictly
confidential. Do not discuss or reveal names, institutions,
project activities or any other information contained in
the applications. Contact program staff if you have any
questions concerning an application—do not contact an
applicant directly.
2 1
22. Evaluation Form
• One form for each proposal
• Copy unique Log Number from proposal:
“LG-XX-XXXX”
• Fill in comments for each section
• Sign with your Gmail ID, Date
2 2
23. Narrative Sections/Evaluation Criteria
• Statement of Need
• Project Goals and Impact
• Project Design
• Project Resources: Personnel, Time, Budget
• Project Probability of Lasting Benefits
2 3
24. 1. Statement of Need
• Does the proposal clearly describe the community
served by the applicant library or museum and
identify specific needs among the community's
youth population?
• Does the proposal provide appropriate supporting
evidence (e.g. demographic or economic data,
local foundation reports, etc.) of community
youth's needs?
• Does the proposal adequately explain how these
needs would be addressed by the proposed
Learning Lab?
2 4
25. 2. Project Goals and Impact
• Does the proposal clearly explain the learning objectives of
a Learning Lab for middle and high school youth, the
community, and the library or museum itself?
• Does the proposal identify long-term goals and outcomes
that will shape the planning and design of the proposed
Lab?
• Does the proposal explain the potential benefits of a
Learning Lab for the community, and for informing other
institutions and communities considering building a lab?
• Does the proposal explain how the identified goals and
outcomes will shape an appropriate and effective evaluation
plan for the proposed Lab?
2 5
26. 3. Project Design
• Does the proposal show evidence that the project team
understands and will continue to base its work on evolving
research and practice on youth, digital media, and
learning?
• Does the proposal describe the facilities or environments
for the Learning Labs and explain how the design related to
its intended use?
• Does the proposal describe the process used to determine
how and why digital media will be used in the proposed
lab?
• Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of the
importance of mentors by planning for their professional
development?
2 6
27. 3. Project Design
• Does the proposal demonstrate collaboration in the
planning process by its inclusion of partners, stakeholders,
and Lab users?
• Does the proposal articulate a plan that is feasible and
sustainable?
• Does the proposal clearly articulate the intended results of
the planning process, including any documents,
agreements, or other products?
• Does the proposal explain how the project team will
determine if the intended results of the planning process
have been achieved?
2 7
28. 4. Project Resources: Personnel, Time,
Budget
• Does the proposal provide a clear description of how the
application will effectively complete the project activities
through the deployment and management of resources,
including people, money and supplies?
• Does the proposal clearly explain the roles, responsibilities,
and time commitment of the leadership team and other
personnel assigned to the project, as well as their ability,
based on expertise and experience, to achieve the project
goals?
• Does the proposal provide a cost-efficient, complete, and
accurate budget that uses appropriate resources for the
proposed activity?
• Does the proposal clearly explain how information will be
shared and decisions made with any proposed partners?
2 8
29. 5. Project Probability of Lasting Benefits
Is this project poised to build the capacity of library
and museum professionals as mentors and creators
of effective programs and learning environments,
and promote museums and libraries as innovation
hubs for middle- and high-school youth in order to
promote 21st century learning? Y / N (circle
one)
2 9
30. Scoring
Provide text comments for each Evaluation Section
Assign one summary rating for each section
• Highly Successful (H)
• Successful (S)
• Not Successful (N)
Assign one overall numeric score for the proposal
• 1,2,3,4 or 5
Ratings and Overall score should correspond
3 0
31. Overall Score
5 (Excellent) The applicant’s response provides
excellent support for each of the evaluation
criteria through the proposed activities. It strongly
demonstrates the potential for libraries and museums to
become youth innovation hubs through the incorporation
of current research, development, and practices in 21st
century skill-building for community youth, and will
thereby build capacity in the field for library and
museum professionals to be mentors and creators of
effective programs/learning environments. (Scores of
“excellent” should only be for the highest quality
applications. E.g. ratings of “H” for all sections)
3 1
32. Overall Score
4 (Very Good) The applicant’s response provides
very good support for each of the evaluation criteria
through the proposed activities. Some minor flaws
exist that may be readily rectified. Innovation and
impact are both demonstrated, but are not
exemplary.
Section ratings: mostly “H”; one or two “S”
3 2
33. Overall Score
3 (Good) The applicant’s response provides
good/adequate support for each of the evaluation
criteria. Both innovation and strategic impact are
demonstrated, but in a limited manner. A score of
"3" indicates you believe the proposal could be
funded if funds are available, but is not as high a
priority as proposals with a score of "4" or "5".
Section ratings: mostly “S”; may have one “H” and/
or one “N”
3 3
34. Overall Score
2 (Some Merit) The application shows some merit
but would benefit from taking into consideration the
recommendations and feedback from reviewers. A
rating of "some merit" indicates the submission is
not ready to receive funding in its current form.
Section ratings: mix of “S” and “N”
3 4
35. Overall Score
1 (Do Not Fund) The "do not fund" score is for
projects that you do not believe would ever be
fundable as a Learning Labs in Libraries and
Museums Grant because they do not have goals and
elements required in this grant program. It may be
a project fundable in another grant category.
Section ratings: All or mostly “N”
3 5
36. Finished?
Read over comments and check scores
Save a copy of each review on your computer
Send a copy to learninglabsreviews@gmail.com
Return honorarium request and W-9
3 6
37. How Your Reviews Are Used
• Field reviewer input provide a basis for the panel
review. Your review will direct panelists to the
strengths and weaknesses of an application, and help
to determine which proposals best fit the program
goals.
• If an application is not funded, your review comments
help the applicant to understand the basis for this
decision. Applicants whose proposals are not ranked
highly enough for panel review will only receive your
field review comments.
3 7
38. Review Timeline
• June 15: Final day for proposals
• July 11: Proposal access open
• July 17: Reviewer webinar
• July 25:Reviewer Teleconference
• August 10: Submit evaluations
3 8
39. Questions?
• Unmute your phone to ask questions, or type them
in to the question box.
• Teleconference for reviewers: July 25
3 9
40. Contact Us
Margaret Glass, mglass@astc.org
202.783.7200 x 129
Amy Eshleman, aeshleman@urbanlibraries.org
312.676.0958
Allison Boals, aboals@imls.gov
202.653.4702
4 0
Eligibility check has already been carried out by IMLS program staff.
Use a fresh browser screen – especially if you have a personal Gmail account.
Each Gmail account has an invitation to a Basecamp account, where the proposals and supporting documents are stored.
Please use the new username and email provided for you – this ensures confidentiality of reviewers. Simply choose a password and confirm it to access Basecamp.
Use the tabs under the Project name (Field Review Group X) to navigate in the project. Click on “Files” to see the contents sorted into “Applications FY13” and “Handbook and reviewer documents.” Click on each file name to download.
